POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 107
1) ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT A DEPOSIT WAS STOLEN
(a) (R. Chiya bar Aba): A watchman claimed that a deposited
object was stolen - he only pays double if he partially
denies the claim and partially admits to the claim.
(b) Question: How do we know this?
(c) Answer: "For this is it (i.e. he admits to something,
denies something else)".
(d) This argues on R. Chiya bar Yosef.
1. (R. Chiya bar Yosef): This verse does not apply
where it was written, rather elsewhere, by loans.
(e) Question: Why should the oath by loans depend on partial
admission, and not by deposits?
(f) Answer: As Rabah taught.
1. (Rabah): The Torah obligates a borrower to swear
(when he partially admits to the claim) because it
is established human nature that a borrower is not
brazen enough to (fully) deny the lender's claim;
i. If not for this, he would deny the entire
2. Because borrowers are not brazen, he would like to
admit to the full claim;
i. He denied part of it to stall until he has the
money to pay the loan.
3. The Torah imposed the oath on him, in order that he
will admit to the full claim.
4. A watchman is brazen enough to deny the claim, so he
swears even by full denial.
(g) (Rami bar Yechezkel): The 4 types of watchmen - a free
watchman, borrower, paid watchman or renter - they only
swear by partial denial and partial admission.
2) TAKING A DEPOSIT FOR ONE'S OWN USE
(h) (Rava): He learns about a free watchman from "For this is
it", which is written by a free watchman;
1. He learns a paid watchman from a Gezeirah Shavah
"Nesinah-Nesinah" from a free watchman;
2. By a borrower - "v'Chi (and when) one will borrow" -
the 'Vov' equates this law to the previous Parshah
(a paid watchman);
3. By a renter - Tana'im argue if his law is like a
free or paid watchman;
i. Either way, we learned that he only swears by
(a) (R. Chiya bar Yosef): One who claims that a deposit was
stolen only pays double if he took it (for his own
(b) Question: How do we know this?
(c) Answer: "The watchman will come to the judges, (to swear
that) he did not take his fellowman's object...(For any
transgression, he pays double)" - implying, if he did
take it, he pays double.
1. This means that when the Torah says he pays double,
this is only when he took it!
(d) (R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): The case is, the
deposited animal is at the feeding trough (he did not
(e) Question (R. Zeira): Does this mean - had he taken it, he
could not swear, he would pay double;
1. Or - even if it is at the feeding trough, if he
(falsely) claims that it was stolen, he pays double?
(f) R. Chiya bar Aba: I did not hear about this, but I heard
a similar case.
1. (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): A watchman (claimed
and) swore that the deposit was lost, then he swore
that it was stolen. Witnesses later testified that
he had it - he does not pay double.
(g) (Rav Sheshes): One who claims that a deposit was stolen -
if he took it (before he swore), he is exempt (from the
2. Suggestion: This is because he acquired the deposit
through his first oath (and only owes principle -
henceforth, it is considered his object, he cannot
pay double for it).
3. Rejection: No - rather, once he swore (that it was
lost), he is not obligated to swear again, the
second oath is not as a watchman's oath to pay
double for it.
4. Support (R. Avin citing R. Yochanan): A watchman
swore that the deposit was lost, then he swore that
it was stolen. Witnesses later testified that he had
it - he does not pay double, because he was only
obligated to swear once.
(h) Question: What is the reason?
(i) Answer: "The (watchman) will come to the judges, if he
did not take his fellowman's object" - implying, if he
did take it, he is exempt.
(j) Question (Rav Nachman): But he must make 3 oaths - that
he was not negligent, that he did not take it for
himself, and that it is not in his domain!
1. Suggestion: The oath that he did not take it for
himself is like the oath that it is not in his
(k) Answer (Rav Sheshes): No - the oath that he did not take
it for himself is as the oath that he was not negligent;
2. Just as by the oath that it is not in his domain, if
it is found that he swore falsely, he pays double
(for really, he stole it) - also, by the oath that
he did not take it for himself!
1. Just as if he swore falsely that he was not
negligent, he (has the law of an (open) robber) does
not pay double, also by the oath that he did not
take it for himself!